>As in "too complex for work" or "too complex for
work with multidimensional data"?
>The first is "too loose to decide" and the second
requires OLAP expertise.
Somewhat
agreed, although I think there is a
third condition which is the one applying to me of
“too
complex to use as springboard to the technology” , that is I felt from
dealing with it that I had to back out and start from OLAP, this is like
starting from tex (or some other layout technology)
to deal with xsl-fo, may be a good idea but shouldn’t
be necessary in my opinion. I realize this is arguable, I can sit here and
argue it to myself, nonetheless I hate it when a domain-specific application of
xml is so insular that I cannot come to a clear understanding of the domain
from reading about the spec.
> OLAP is one of those
neat technologies that doesn't get much attention in the XML
>world. I've always considered XML for Analysis a ground
breaking and much
>ignored innovation. Locally, I find when I
inquire about it that the SQL practicioners
>want to ignore OLAP as "too hard and we don't really need
it".
I
do consider OLAP from what I’ve learned of it in my spare time, a neat
technology, I also can’t help thinking that for my SQL practice it is “too
hard and I can do without it” if such technical schizophrenia is
acceptable, I’m pretty sure
my co-workers would be divided into the “too hard and we don’t
really need it” and the “shut up Bryan” camps. As for the groundbreakingness of XML for Analysis I have some feeling
for the specification, complicated by its near unreadability(for
one of my average abilities, there are no doubt people out there for whom it is
a transparent spec) and my need to go cross-referencing all the time and
thinking “hell I will never use this”. For me when I think of groundbreakingness
in XML I tend to think of stuff like UBL , things that I feel I will one day
come to use and applaud. Does this seem wrongheaded?
>So one might
>approach this first by enumerating the cases for which OLAP is the
simpler
>approach and then the subset of these for which XML For Analysis is
the
I think that would be cool, and a useful
way of evaluating many of the standards that come out. In some way this is what
some threads on this list attempts to do for various specifications, it would
be nice if these comparisons were on some site together
- could call it www.xmlcomparisons.org
Maybe some Microsoft people on this list
have specific insights on the matter and would like to do concise evaluations?
